Claudia Anzini Annotation 2 2/28/14 The End of the Line Word Count: 1,261
1. Title, director, and release year?
The End of the Line. Directed by Rupert Murray. Released 2009.
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The central narrative of The End of the Line is overfishing and how it is leading to the extinction of fish. The film discusses different causes of overfishing, which include poor fishing regulations and fish finder technology that makes it impossible for fish to hide. It also touches on some solutions that have been implemented and the impact of these solutions.
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
The film’s main argument is made through facts and data trends. It focuses on certain events that have had a large impact on the fishing industry to prove these facts and even looks at current problems causing overfishing. One of the examples given is the overfishing of cod in Newfoundland, where cod was once abundant. The government didn’t place enough regulations on the fishing and overnight many lost their job due to lack of fish. The film also discusses the repercussions of overfishing by giving facts that are true now. For example, places where overfishing has occurred have seen an increase in algae, worms, and jellyfish. All of these things in excess are not good for sustaining other life in the oceans.
The film overall is not trying to tug at your heartstrings to enact change. Instead it focuses on making points that are relevant to the viewer and suggesting simple solutions that one could follow after watching this film. For example, the film discusses Wal-Mart’s pledge to sell sustainably sourced fish. A viewer watching this film could decide to only purchase fish from Wal-Mart, knowing the fish was sustainably sourced. Seeing close to home examples and solutions like this makes it easier for the viewer to relate to what is going on and makes it seem possible to change current habits.
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out; political, legal, economic, technological, media and informational,organizational, educational, behavioral, cultural, or ecological?
The main problem the film focused on was ecological, but one could argue that this problem was caused by political, legal, and even technological issues. The most notable issue is the environmental impact that overfishing has. Underwater ecosystems are being destroyed by drag-net fishing and even if some fish weren’t captured during this process, their home would be destroyed and they would have to place to thrive in the oceans. Overfishing also leads to an increase in algae, jellyfish, and worms. These things can just as easily destroy an ecosystem and make waterway inhabitable. These problems have been caused by loose regulations on fishing and technological advancements. With fish finder technology improving all the time, it makes it harder for the fish to hide from fishers. The government barely steps in to try to fix this problem and even when it does, it struggles to prevent people from catching more than they should.
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I think the most convincing aspect of the film was having the post film facts scrolling during the closing scene. Most films leave you questioning what happened in the end or wanting more information on how to take action. This film did a good job wrapping up in a way that left me satisfied with what information I was given and I even felt encouraged to make small changes in my eating habits. One of the side stories within the film was focused on the restaurant chain, Nobu, and how they served Bluefin Tuna, which is known to be an overfished tuna species. In the film, Charles Clover, an environmental journalist, finally got through to speak with them, but the story ended there. In the end, it was listed that the restaurant noted on the menu that the fish was environmentally challenged. While this was not the solution anyone was looking for, it was nice to know that something came of it instead of being left to question what happened.
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
I think where the film fell a little flat was in the storyline. It was all over the place and did not flow well in a way that made sense in the end. The meaning behind all of the different storylines was still there, but a little bit of it was lost in the confusion of trying to follow along with everything. Had the film been more straightforward or if the stories did not jump around to different topics halfway through, I think the film would have been just fine.
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
I think this film has a very broad audience, but definitely was aimed more towards people who live in countries where fish consumption is high. I don’t think it targeted any one group based on how the material was presented. There were not any large understandable facts and at the same time, there were actual facts and not just opinions about what was going on. The film was made relatable by touching on aspects of the fishing industry that affect everyone and suggesting reasonable solutions to the problem.
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
As it is, the film is a good educational tool that spans from an introduction to the topic to further supplemental material on the overfishing crisis. That being said, it still could have worked on introducing more possible solutions to the problem. It suggested a few and even talked about the repercussions of some, but it could have touched on more.
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The film suggested a few solutions to the overfishing crisis. One of the biggest solutions it focused on was farming fish. While as an idea it appears to be a good and easy solution, it has some major drawbacks. The problem with fish farms is that they require fishmeal to feed the farmed fish and this fishmeal is made from fish caught in the ocean. About 40% of the fish that are caught get made into fishmeal for fish farms. Other solutions suggested were stricter regulations on fishing and marine sanctuaries. As a point of intervention for the consumer, it was suggested that consumers look for sustainably sourced fish and try to eat the smaller fish that would have been fed to the big fish they are used to consuming.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
After watching this film, I felt the need to do some fact-checking. I was curious to see if Wal-Mart, being the giant within the supermarket industry that it is, actually followed through on switching its fish products to being sustainably sourced. I learned that as of January 31, 2012, about 76% of the fish sold in Wal-Mart had been third-party certified. This led me to look into a company that I regularly consume fish from, Sodexo. I was happily surprised to learn that they had a solid plan in place. Some changes include not purchasing any at risk seafood, using less known fish, and not purchasing any immature or illegally sourced fish.
Annotation 2
2/28/14
The End of the Line
Word Count: 1,261
1. Title, director, and release year?
The End of the Line. Directed by Rupert Murray. Released 2009.
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The central narrative of The End of the Line is overfishing and how it is leading to the extinction of fish. The film discusses different causes of overfishing, which include poor fishing regulations and fish finder technology that makes it impossible for fish to hide. It also touches on some solutions that have been implemented and the impact of these solutions.
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
The film’s main argument is made through facts and data trends. It focuses on certain events that have had a large impact on the fishing industry to prove these facts and even looks at current problems causing overfishing. One of the examples given is the overfishing of cod in Newfoundland, where cod was once abundant. The government didn’t place enough regulations on the fishing and overnight many lost their job due to lack of fish. The film also discusses the repercussions of overfishing by giving facts that are true now. For example, places where overfishing has occurred have seen an increase in algae, worms, and jellyfish. All of these things in excess are not good for sustaining other life in the oceans.
The film overall is not trying to tug at your heartstrings to enact change. Instead it focuses on making points that are relevant to the viewer and suggesting simple solutions that one could follow after watching this film. For example, the film discusses Wal-Mart’s pledge to sell sustainably sourced fish. A viewer watching this film could decide to only purchase fish from Wal-Mart, knowing the fish was sustainably sourced. Seeing close to home examples and solutions like this makes it easier for the viewer to relate to what is going on and makes it seem possible to change current habits.
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out; political, legal, economic, technological, media and informational,organizational, educational, behavioral, cultural, or ecological?
The main problem the film focused on was ecological, but one could argue that this problem was caused by political, legal, and even technological issues. The most notable issue is the environmental impact that overfishing has. Underwater ecosystems are being destroyed by drag-net fishing and even if some fish weren’t captured during this process, their home would be destroyed and they would have to place to thrive in the oceans. Overfishing also leads to an increase in algae, jellyfish, and worms. These things can just as easily destroy an ecosystem and make waterway inhabitable. These problems have been caused by loose regulations on fishing and technological advancements. With fish finder technology improving all the time, it makes it harder for the fish to hide from fishers. The government barely steps in to try to fix this problem and even when it does, it struggles to prevent people from catching more than they should.
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I think the most convincing aspect of the film was having the post film facts scrolling during the closing scene. Most films leave you questioning what happened in the end or wanting more information on how to take action. This film did a good job wrapping up in a way that left me satisfied with what information I was given and I even felt encouraged to make small changes in my eating habits. One of the side stories within the film was focused on the restaurant chain, Nobu, and how they served Bluefin Tuna, which is known to be an overfished tuna species. In the film, Charles Clover, an environmental journalist, finally got through to speak with them, but the story ended there. In the end, it was listed that the restaurant noted on the menu that the fish was environmentally challenged. While this was not the solution anyone was looking for, it was nice to know that something came of it instead of being left to question what happened.
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
I think where the film fell a little flat was in the storyline. It was all over the place and did not flow well in a way that made sense in the end. The meaning behind all of the different storylines was still there, but a little bit of it was lost in the confusion of trying to follow along with everything. Had the film been more straightforward or if the stories did not jump around to different topics halfway through, I think the film would have been just fine.
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
I think this film has a very broad audience, but definitely was aimed more towards people who live in countries where fish consumption is high. I don’t think it targeted any one group based on how the material was presented. There were not any large understandable facts and at the same time, there were actual facts and not just opinions about what was going on. The film was made relatable by touching on aspects of the fishing industry that affect everyone and suggesting reasonable solutions to the problem.
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
As it is, the film is a good educational tool that spans from an introduction to the topic to further supplemental material on the overfishing crisis. That being said, it still could have worked on introducing more possible solutions to the problem. It suggested a few and even talked about the repercussions of some, but it could have touched on more.
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The film suggested a few solutions to the overfishing crisis. One of the biggest solutions it focused on was farming fish. While as an idea it appears to be a good and easy solution, it has some major drawbacks. The problem with fish farms is that they require fishmeal to feed the farmed fish and this fishmeal is made from fish caught in the ocean. About 40% of the fish that are caught get made into fishmeal for fish farms. Other solutions suggested were stricter regulations on fishing and marine sanctuaries. As a point of intervention for the consumer, it was suggested that consumers look for sustainably sourced fish and try to eat the smaller fish that would have been fed to the big fish they are used to consuming.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
After watching this film, I felt the need to do some fact-checking. I was curious to see if Wal-Mart, being the giant within the supermarket industry that it is, actually followed through on switching its fish products to being sustainably sourced. I learned that as of January 31, 2012, about 76% of the fish sold in Wal-Mart had been third-party certified. This led me to look into a company that I regularly consume fish from, Sodexo. I was happily surprised to learn that they had a solid plan in place. Some changes include not purchasing any at risk seafood, using less known fish, and not purchasing any immature or illegally sourced fish.
Citations
"Sustainable Seafood." Walmart Corporate. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2014. <http://corporate.walmart.com/global-responsibility/environment-sustainability/sustainable-seafood>.
"Sustainable Seafood Policy." Sodexo USA. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2014. <http://sodexousa.com/usen/Images/Sodexo-Sustainable-Seafood-Policy-May2011337-594183.pdf>.